Evidence lab

Open the record.

Two research questions. One way to inspect sources, claims, and the limits between them.

Prepared source packets Manual curation. No live ingestion.
Scientific review remains pending.

Clinical research

PsychDoc · Depression evidence

Which parts of a psilocybin depression result survive an assumed bias shift?

Download packet

Inspect a saved analysis, its population limits and the assumptions that change its interpretation.

Claim 1Saved result · independent review pending

The saved primary analysis pools 12 trials: Hedges’ g −0.90, with a 95% confidence interval from −1.26 to −0.55.

Interpretation limit

Negative values favour psilocybin. The dataset combines several clinical populations and controls; this is not an MDD-only effect, a durability estimate or a treatment recommendation.

Claim 2Saved subgroup · independent review pending

For the five MDD or TRD trials alone, the saved estimate is −0.93; its 95% interval, −1.87 to 0.01, includes no effect.

Interpretation limit

Two of the five trials are open-label waitlist comparisons. The subgroup and primary result reuse trials; they are not independent replications.

Claim 3Saved prediction interval · review pending

The saved primary model’s 95% prediction interval is wider: −1.73 to −0.08.

Interpretation limit

This model-conditional interval for a new comparable trial is not the confidence interval for the pooled mean. It crosses both illustrative benefit thresholds used in this demo.

Replay of a saved analysis

What changes with an assumed bias?

Canonical analysis ↗

Add the same assumed positive shift to the saved estimate and both confidence bounds. Interval width stays fixed. The shift is imposed, not estimated; this is a replay, not a refit or a probability of truth. The two thresholds are inherited illustrative choices, not patient-specific cutoffs. It does not apply to the materials packet.

Stage B awaits independent scientific review

Saved result
Assumed shift
Hedges’ g; Negative values favour psilocybin

Saved replay: Claim 1, primary analysis. Selecting another claim does not change this replay.

Estimate −0.90; 95% confidence interval −1.26 to −0.55.

The control adds the same assumed shift to the estimate and both interval endpoints. It does not estimate bias, refit the model, or change the interval width.

Reference lines are saved analytical thresholds, not universal clinical cutoffs. A shifted interval crossing a line is conditional on this chosen assumption. Displayed values are rounded; the packet retains full precision.

Saved analysis provenance

Download the pinned result snapshot

Download the trial records of the primary analysis

Replay of a saved analysis · assumed additive bias · PsychDoc 3001296 · stability.json SHA-256 7289ec7d89f6df0061d2aa7508f58c4d46c37a611a5838162470596ff1e1ace1

Claim 1

Linked evidence

sypres-data2025
SYPRES depression-psiloctr, version 25.1.2↗
Versioned dataset
Pinned data.csv; SHA-256 237b4a5601bd4de1b1c1b0e335e730677c2b09cd7a3ce2c893df623e9feba793. Trial inputs have not all been checked against reports.
psychdoc-stage-b2026
PsychDoc Stage B saved sensitivity analysis↗
Saved analysis · review pending
Saved stability.json at PsychDoc commit 3001296325cb95d64fcca6e412eb10b48264144a: primary, mdd-trd and prediction interval; see downloadable provenance.
sypres-paper2026
A living systematic review, meta-analysis and open-data resource of randomized controlled trials of psilocybin treatment for symptoms of depression↗
Published meta-analysis
Public abstract; article Methods, Results and Supplement were not re-audited for this packet.
sypres-code2026
SYPRES analysis release 26.0.0↗
Author analysis code
psilodep-meta-analysis.Rmd. Existing PsychDoc rerun receipt was inspected; the original R model was not rerun during this website build.

Claim 2

Linked evidence

sypres-data2025
SYPRES depression-psiloctr, version 25.1.2↗
Versioned dataset
Pinned data.csv; SHA-256 237b4a5601bd4de1b1c1b0e335e730677c2b09cd7a3ce2c893df623e9feba793. Trial inputs have not all been checked against reports.
psychdoc-stage-b2026
PsychDoc Stage B saved sensitivity analysis↗
Saved analysis · review pending
Saved stability.json at PsychDoc commit 3001296325cb95d64fcca6e412eb10b48264144a: primary, mdd-trd and prediction interval; see downloadable provenance.

Claim 3

Linked evidence

sypres-data2025
SYPRES depression-psiloctr, version 25.1.2↗
Versioned dataset
Pinned data.csv; SHA-256 237b4a5601bd4de1b1c1b0e335e730677c2b09cd7a3ce2c893df623e9feba793. Trial inputs have not all been checked against reports.
psychdoc-stage-b2026
PsychDoc Stage B saved sensitivity analysis↗
Saved analysis · review pending
Saved stability.json at PsychDoc commit 3001296325cb95d64fcca6e412eb10b48264144a: primary, mdd-trd and prediction interval; see downloadable provenance.

Conditions behind the claims

Read across before comparing

A missing or different condition is a reason to inspect the source, not to treat two results as equivalent.

PsychDoc · Depression evidence: recorded conditions. Unrecorded fields are shown explicitly.
Condition	Claim 1	Claim 2	Claim 3
Endpoint	Standardized depression-score effect (Hedges’ g)	Hedges’ g; same orientation as primary result	Hedges’ g in a new comparable trial
Population	Mixed trial populations; not MDD/TRD alone	MDD or treatment-resistant depression	Not recorded in this packet
Window	Primary windows: 14–49 days after final dose	Not recorded in this packet	Not recorded in this packet
Model	Saved REML / Hartung–Knapp primary analysis	Not recorded in this packet	Not recorded in this packet
Evidence subset	Not recorded in this packet	5 trials; 2 open-label waitlist comparisons	Not recorded in this packet
Interpretation	Not recorded in this packet	Uncertainty includes zero	Not recorded in this packet
Interval type	Not recorded in this packet	Not recorded in this packet	95% prediction interval
Dependence	Not recorded in this packet	Not recorded in this packet	Same fitted primary analysis, not new evidence
Scope	Not recorded in this packet	Not recorded in this packet	Model assumptions and comparability still apply

How this packet was prepared

Pinned SYPRES data releaseDataset identity pinned; source-input audit incompleteSources: sypres-data
Author code → saved PsychDoc analysisExisting reproduction inspected; no new refit in this demoSources: sypres-code, psychdoc-stage-b
Primary, subgroup and prediction outputs reuse evidenceDo not count these outputs as independent studiesSources: sypres-data, psychdoc-stage-b

Version and supported operations

Download preparation notes · Source-reference check receipt

PsychDoc 3001296 · SYPRES 25.1.2 · packet 2026-10-10.1

Source-linked claims
Explicit population and endpoint limits
Saved additive-bias replay

Prepared packet with manual source curation. This view does not run live ingestion or automatic full-text extraction.

Materials research

Perovskite · Stability conditions

Can these solar-cell stability results be compared on the same terms?

Download packet

Four primary reports and separate ISOS guidance show why time, environment, device identity and endpoint must travel with a claim.

Claim 1Author-reported · abstract scope

Jiang and colleagues report temperature-dependent operational stability, including more than 1,000 hours at 85 °C and nearly 8,200 hours at 50 °C with a projected 20% degradation.

Interpretation limit

The endpoint is projected. These are results from one device study at different temperatures, not interchangeable lifetimes or independent replications. Encapsulation, humidity and stability-sample counts were not extracted from the abstract.

Claim 2Author-reported · selected passages checked

The encapsulated HUBLA device retained 88% of its initial efficiency after 1,000 hours of maximum-power-point tracking at 85 °C and about 30% relative humidity.

Interpretation limit

This is the Fig. 4c experiment in air, not the paper’s separate unencapsulated nitrogen experiment. The stability device’s initial efficiency is 23.0%, not the champion efficiency.

Claim 3Author-reported · abstract scope

Lian and colleagues report 95% efficiency retention after 1,000 hours of maximum-power-point tracking for their 1.77 eV perovskite cells.

Interpretation limit

This stability claim concerns the single-junction wide-bandgap cells. The abstract separately reports tandem efficiency. Temperature, atmosphere, encapsulation and sample counts were not extracted for this packet.

Claim 4Author-reported · abstract and caption scope

The host–guest-treated cells retained over 95% of their performance during 500 hours of continuous operation without encapsulation.

Interpretation limit

Fig. 5c specifies nitrogen and 25 °C. An unencapsulated test in nitrogen is not an ambient-air humidity test or an outdoor lifetime demonstration.

Claim 5Reporting guidance · not experimental evidence

ISOS guidance calls for explicit ageing conditions, device information and sample counts so stability reports can be interpreted and compared.

Interpretation limit

A reporting framework does not make these four experiments statistically compatible. Missing metadata, different devices and different endpoints prevent a defensible pooled estimate in this packet.

No pooled effect is shown for this corpus.

The recorded endpoints and testing conditions do not establish a compatible statistical input set. Psychiatric effect sizes and bias thresholds do not transfer to these materials reports.

Claim 1

Linked evidence

jiang-20232023
Towards linking lab and field lifetimes of perovskite solar cells↗
Primary report · abstract inspected
Public abstract, especially its final three sentences. Subscription article body was not used for this claim.

Claim 2

Linked evidence

wang-20242024
Water- and heat-activated dynamic passivation for perovskite photovoltaics↗
Primary report · selected full-text passages inspected
Abstract; “Device performance and stability”; Fig. 4c caption; “Solar-cell characterization” in Methods.

Claim 3

Linked evidence

lian-20252025
A supramolecular approach to improve the performance and operational stability of all-perovskite tandem solar cells↗
Primary report · abstract inspected
Abstract. Claim belongs to the 1.77 eV single-junction cells; the separately reported tandem efficiency is not their stability measurement.

Claim 4

Linked evidence

zhang-20212021
Multimodal host–guest complexation for efficient and stable perovskite photovoltaics↗
Primary report · abstract and figure caption inspected
Abstract; Fig. 5c caption for atmosphere, temperature and illumination. Other experiments are not merged into this claim.

Claim 5

Linked evidence

isos-20202020
Consensus statement for stability assessment and reporting for perovskite photovoltaics based on ISOS procedures↗
Reporting guidance · not a device experiment
“Checklist for PSC stability studies”, Table 3; discussion of stability figures of merit and Table 5.

Conditions behind the claims

Read across before comparing

A missing or different condition is a reason to inspect the source, not to treat two results as equivalent.

Perovskite · Stability conditions: recorded conditions. Unrecorded fields are shown explicitly.
Condition	Claim 1	Claim 2	Claim 3	Claim 4	Claim 5
Device	Study-specific p–i–n perovskite stack	HUBLA p–i–n device; Fig. 4c	Supramolecular-engineered 1.77 eV cells	Host–guest-treated perovskite device; Fig. 5c	Not recorded in this packet
Temperature	85 °C and 50 °C; distinct conditions	85 °C	Not extracted from abstract	25 °C	Not recorded in this packet
Illumination	Illuminated operation; spectrum not extracted	1 sun; maximum-power-point tracking	Maximum-power-point tracking; spectrum not extracted	AM1.5G, 100 mW/cm²; maximum-power-point tracking	Not recorded in this packet
Environment	Humidity and encapsulation not extracted	Air; about 30% RH; encapsulated	Humidity and encapsulation not extracted	Nitrogen; unencapsulated	Not recorded in this packet
Endpoint	Projected 20% degradation; not a common measured T80	88% of initial PCE at 1,000 h	95% of initial efficiency at 1,000 h	Over 95% performance retention at 500 h	Not recorded in this packet
Role	Not recorded in this packet	Not recorded in this packet	Not recorded in this packet	Not recorded in this packet	Reporting framework, separate from primary reports
Inspect	Not recorded in this packet	Not recorded in this packet	Not recorded in this packet	Not recorded in this packet	Temperature, atmosphere, illumination and encapsulation
Preserve	Not recorded in this packet	Not recorded in this packet	Not recorded in this packet	Not recorded in this packet	Device/sample identity and normalization baseline
Do not infer	Not recorded in this packet	Not recorded in this packet	Not recorded in this packet	Not recorded in this packet	Shared conditions from a shared “stable” label

How this packet was prepared

Four primary reports → four experiment-specific claimsManually selected; study independence not adjudicatedSources: jiang-2023, wang-2024, lian-2025, zhang-2021
ISOS reporting frameworkGuidance is not counted as an experimentSources: isos-2020
Conditions compared; incompatible endpoints kept separateNo pooled estimate; no source extraction automationSources: jiang-2023, wang-2024, lian-2025, zhang-2021, isos-2020

Version and supported operations

Download preparation notes · Source-reference check receipt

Manual source packet · 2026-10-10.1

Source-linked claims
Condition comparison
Explicit missing metadata
No compatible pooled analysis

Prepared packet with manual source curation. This view does not run live ingestion or automatic full-text extraction.

This demonstration supports inspection and expert criticism. It is not clinical guidance, a comprehensive literature review, or a claim of validated analysis across arbitrary corpora.

Understand the method